Date:    12/16/1999  10:54 AM

Subject: SEC Proposes Selective Disclosure Ban
 
Gentlemen & Ladies:
     
I am writing in reaction to your Dec. 15th Press Release, on this matter, and 
also in reference to today's Dec 16th story in the New York Times "Wall St. 
Snarls at S.E.C. Proposal on Disclosure" page C1, by Floyd Norris. 
     
I believe that, if your Press Release accurately portrays the proposed rule 
(yet to be posted on your web site), you are being overly timid in solving a 
serious problem. Moreover, the so called "Wall Street" reactions cited in the 
Times article show the strength of the "Analyst Industry" and their affinity 
with their favored and, I believe, illegal treatment by companies. The 
article reflects the efforts of the Analyst Industry to obtain, and profit, 
from exclusive information and their anxiety at any prospect of being denied 
such a favored, and unfair, position. 
     
While the nature of your proposed rule would seem to put some pressure on 
companies, it does nothing to penalize the illegal profiting by the "Analyst" 
industry. It also misses the point in ignoring the particular use of both 
"Conference Calls" and related "Guidance Calls."
     
Many of the problems come, as alluded to in the Times article, from the now 
popular "Conference Calls." These calls enable a selected audience to engage 
in and overhear dialogues, i.e., questions and answers not available to all 
investors. Most, if not all, conference calls are not widely advertised and 
are difficult to find out about. Almost none are, for example, advertised on 
companies' web sites, -- a bizarre circumstance in today's Internet world. 
Their notice in the popular financial press is nonexistent, (I realize that 
they are an alternative to these outlets---- but so are shareholder reports!)
     
It is possible, maybe even probable, that conference calls would be 
unmanageable if all investors, let alone potential ones, could participate, 
and this is a justification made by most company executives. Obviously, this 
is speculative, since no known instance of such "unmanageability" exists, and 
does not justify illegal, selective information dissemination.
     
Clearly, your rule should require these calls to be either widely advertised, 
-- certainly on company web sites,-- or else disallowed.
     
Probably even worse than the conference calls, are the events which, 
nowadays, often follow them, although sometimes occurring independently. 
These are the private calls to/from analysts with so called "Guidance." 
Usually, Guidance calls follow Conference Calls, so that issues raised in 
front of the other "insiders" of the conference call can be further pursued 
"one on one." This is so blatant an abuse that ignoring it in your proposed 
rule would be an obviously irresponsible.
     
Further, de-coupling these events from insider trader regulation, as your 
Press Release suggests, would be a mistake.
     
The major beneficiaries of the restricted Conference Calls and related 
Guidance Calls are the Analysts. They, and/or their employers, illegally 
profit from trading their own accounts and from reaping fees based on their 
disclosure of their illegally obtained information to their clients.
     
These Analysts and their employers should be prosecuted, under today's laws 
and rules, and should not be left untouched by any further regulation of 
selective disclosure.
     
I look forward to information on this matter being made available and to an 
eventual rule that will eliminate the abuse of selective information 
disclosure.
     
Cheers
Colin Shanks
Nashua NH